Adapted with permission from: B. Wellman & L. Lipton, (2004). Data-Driven Dialogue: A Facilitator's Guide to Collaborative Inquiry. Sherman, CT: MiraVia LLC. The Adaptive School: Developing and Facilitating Collaborative Groups . Center for Adaptive Schools . www.adaptiveschools.com
Thinking is a biochemical process that engages the molecules of emotion and the molecules of
cognition. We are wired to detect threat in the communications of others. Reducing the potential for
threat in our questions means that how we inquire is as important as the topic of our inquiry. To keep
others open and thinking we need to pay attention to several important features in our communication.
Full Attention
The invitation to think begins with full attention to others in the group signaling that our full presence is
available for this conversation and that we intend no harm. This physical message meshes with several
important verbal elements that form an invitation to think together and think about the ideas being
explored.
Approachable Voice
Using an approachable voice is the first element of the invitation. This voice is well modulated and
tends to rise at the end of a statement, summary or question (Grinder 1997). This tonal package wraps
around our questions and comments indicating the intention to invite and explore thinking and not to
interrogate or challenge.
Plural Forms
Two important syntactical choices invite colleagues to think with us and increase the options and
possibilities for thinking. The first is to use plural forms; observations instead of observation, options
instead of option. The use of plural forms sets aside the need for evaluation and the sorting of ideas.
Often group members need to hear their ideas aloud before they know which are most central to the
issues before the group.
Exploratory Language
The second syntactical element is the use of exploratory phrasing in statements, paraphrases and
questions. Words like some, might, seems, possible, and hunches widen the potential range of responses
and reduce the need of confidence and surety. Words like could and why may decrease the confidence of
listeners by seeming to ask for premature commitment or a need to defend ideas and actions that are not
yet fully developed.
Nondichotomous Questions
Invitational and mediational facilitators and group members frame their questions using the elements
listed above. In addition, they frame their questions by using open-ended, nondichotomous forms. These
are questions that cannot be answered yes or no. For example, instead of asking a group, “Did anyone
notice anything unusual in this data set?” they ask, “What are some interesting our unusual things that
you noticed in this data set?” By eliminating dichotomous stems such as, “Can you,” “Did you,” “Will
you,” or “Have you,” facilitators and skilled group members invite productive thinking and promote a
spirit of inquiry within the group.
Advocacy
Make your thinking and reasoning visible
Describe the focus of your advocacy. “An issue that is important to me is...” "My assumptions
are..."
Describe your reasoning. “I came to this conclusion because...”
Describe your feelings. “I feel about this.”
Distinguish data from interpretation. “This is the data I have as objectively as I can state it.
Now here is what I think the data means.”
Reveal your perspective. “I'm seeing this from the viewpoint of or or .”
Frame the wider context that surrounds this issue. “Several groups would be affected by
what I propose...”
Give concrete examples. “To get a clear picture, imagine that you are in school X...”
Test your assumptions and conclusions
Encourage others to explore your model, assumptions and data. “What do you think about
what I just said? Do you see any flaws in my reasoning? What can you add?”
Reveal where you are least clear. “Here’s one area you might help me think through...”
Stay open. Encourage others to provide different views: “Do you see it differently?”
Search for distortions, deletions and generalizations. “In what I’ve presented, do you believe
I might have overgeneralized, or left out data or reported data incorrectly?”
Putting Inquiry at the Center
Adapted with permission from: B. Wellman & L. Lipton, (2004). Data-Driven Dialogue: A Facilitator's Guide to
Collaborative Inquiry. Sherman, CT: MiraVia LLC.
The Adaptive School: Developing and Facilitating Collaborative Groups . Center for Adaptive Schools . www.adaptiveschools.com
Thinking is a biochemical process that engages the molecules of emotion and the molecules of
cognition. We are wired to detect threat in the communications of others. Reducing the potential for
threat in our questions means that how we inquire is as important as the topic of our inquiry. To keep
others open and thinking we need to pay attention to several important features in our communication.
Full Attention
The invitation to think begins with full attention to others in the group signaling that our full presence is
available for this conversation and that we intend no harm. This physical message meshes with several
important verbal elements that form an invitation to think together and think about the ideas being
explored.
Approachable Voice
Using an approachable voice is the first element of the invitation. This voice is well modulated and
tends to rise at the end of a statement, summary or question (Grinder 1997). This tonal package wraps
around our questions and comments indicating the intention to invite and explore thinking and not to
interrogate or challenge.
Plural Forms
Two important syntactical choices invite colleagues to think with us and increase the options and
possibilities for thinking. The first is to use plural forms; observations instead of observation, options
instead of option. The use of plural forms sets aside the need for evaluation and the sorting of ideas.
Often group members need to hear their ideas aloud before they know which are most central to the
issues before the group.
Exploratory Language
The second syntactical element is the use of exploratory phrasing in statements, paraphrases and
questions. Words like some, might, seems, possible, and hunches widen the potential range of responses
and reduce the need of confidence and surety. Words like could and why may decrease the confidence of
listeners by seeming to ask for premature commitment or a need to defend ideas and actions that are not
yet fully developed.
Nondichotomous Questions
Invitational and mediational facilitators and group members frame their questions using the elements
listed above. In addition, they frame their questions by using open-ended, nondichotomous forms. These
are questions that cannot be answered yes or no. For example, instead of asking a group, “Did anyone
notice anything unusual in this data set?” they ask, “What are some interesting our unusual things that
you noticed in this data set?” By eliminating dichotomous stems such as, “Can you,” “Did you,” “Will
you,” or “Have you,” facilitators and skilled group members invite productive thinking and promote a
spirit of inquiry within the group.
Advocacy
Make your thinking and reasoning visible
Describe the focus of your advocacy. “An issue that is important to me is...” "My assumptions
are..."
Describe your reasoning. “I came to this conclusion because...”
Describe your feelings. “I feel about this.”
Distinguish data from interpretation. “This is the data I have as objectively as I can state it.
Now here is what I think the data means.”
Reveal your perspective. “I'm seeing this from the viewpoint of or or .”
Frame the wider context that surrounds this issue. “Several groups would be affected by
what I propose...”
Give concrete examples. “To get a clear picture, imagine that you are in school X...”
Test your assumptions and conclusions
Encourage others to explore your model, assumptions and data. “What do you think about
what I just said? Do you see any flaws in my reasoning? What can you add?”
Reveal where you are least clear. “Here’s one area you might help me think through...”
Stay open. Encourage others to provide different views: “Do you see it differently?”
Search for distortions, deletions and generalizations. “In what I’ve presented, do you believe
I might have overgeneralized, or left out data or reported data incorrectly?”